Scrofini v. Elizabeth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scrofini v. Elizabeth

226 A.D.2d 523, 640 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 523 (Scrofini v. Elizabeth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scrofini v. Elizabeth, 226 A.D.2d 523, 640 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 19, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Victory Memorial Hospital and M. Elizabeth G. Sebollena for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The court correctly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply and dismissed the action as untimely (see, Jorge v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 79 NY2d 905). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated April 19, 1995, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Victory Memorial Hospital and M. Elizabeth G. Sebollena for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The court correctly determined that the continuous treatment doctrine does not apply and dismissed the action as untimely (see, Jorge v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 79 NY2d 905). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 523, 640 N.Y.S.2d 818, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scrofini-v-elizabeth-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack